我不认为关于平衡增长和不平衡增长的优缺点的争论是很有收获的。这两种理论都存在着根本性的弱点。不平衡增长鼓吹者的头一个困难是,就从事发展的国家来说,不平衡是不可避免的,计划工作人员并不需要理论家的忠告。不平衡增长第二个弱点是,这个理论集中在扩张的刺激方面,而忽视不平衡所引起的阻力。就平衡增长关系到开辟市场和投资引诱来说,它的主要缺点是,最后的市场往往能轻而易举地依靠重要的限制来开辟,而不依靠平衡增长。在计划问题上,纳斯从协调到政府计划的逻辑转变是有缺点的。纳斯论证的第二点错误是把价格机构不能“充分获得金钱上的外部经济”归咎于不确定性。纳斯关于“平衡增长论同样适用于相对发达国家和不发达国家”的说法也是错误的。在供给的限制与供给缺乏弹性问题上,纳斯误解了努克西的论旨,他认为供给的限制是同平衡增长概念不相干的,因为生产要素会随着时间的进展而增加。如果平衡增长强调市场是限制增长的因素,那么希尔西曼的不平衡增长强调的是决定。这暗示,供给比较容易获得。我们应当欢迎重点移向态度方面,通常假定它要调节到必要程度。纳斯受了旧思想习惯的束缚,所以他看不到这种假定上的变化。我对平衡增长的批评是:它使用的参数应改为因变数;关于最后产品流量在时间序列上,它是模糊不清的;它把收入弹性看成是神圣不可侵犯。 I do not think there is much to be gained from the debate over the pros and cons of balanced and unbalanced growth. Both theories have fundamental weaknesses. The first difficulty with unbalanced growth advocates is that inequality is inevitable in the developing countries, and planners do not need the advice of theorists. The second weakness of unbalanced growth is that the theory focuses on the stimulus for expansion, ignoring the resistance caused by imbalances. The main shortcoming with regard to balancing growth with the opening up of markets and investment inducements is that the final markets tend to be easily relied on important constraints rather than relying on balanced growth. On the issue of planning, the logical shift from coordination to government planning by NAS is flawed. The second error in Nars’ argument is that the price agencies can not “adequately obtain a monetary external economy” because of the uncertainty. Nass’s statement that “the theory of balanced growth is equally applicable to relatively developed and underdeveloped countries” is also wrong. Nazis misunderstood Nuxi’s thesis about the limits of supply and the lack of flexibility in supply, arguing that supply constraints are irrelevant to the notion of balanced growth, as factors of production increase over time. If balanced growth emphasizes that the market is the limiting factor for growth, then the uneven growth of Mr Hillman emphasizes the decision. This implies that supplies are easier to obtain. We should welcome the shift in emphasis from the point of view, usually assuming that it is to be adjusted to the necessary degree. Nas was bound by the old habits of mind, so he could not see the change in this assumption. My criticism of balanced growth is that the parameters it uses should be changed to dependent variables; it is ambiguous in time series regarding the final product flow; it views income elasticity as sacrosanct.